Pour a glass of wine and pull up a chair. Our latest conversation with esteemed guest, Dr. David P. Gushee, carries us through a fascinating journey into the intersections of faith, ethics, and politics. A seasoned scholar, Dr. Gushee unpacks the implications of Christian authority within the political landscape while interrogating how power dynamics play out in both religious and political spheres. As a distinguished professor of Christian ethics and author of 28 books, he invokes us to think deeper about our own political engagement.
Our discussion takes a powerful turn as we grapple with recent events in Israel, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the potential future of the two-state solution. While we swirl our wines, we reflect on the church's position in supporting the LGBTQ+ community and our collective responsibility in standing against targeting and demagoguery. We dive into the critical issues at play, challenging our listeners to engage in meaningful conversations about power, authority, and the role of the church in these tumultuous times.
As we raise our glasses to a final toast, we dwell on the trials and triumphs of defending democracy and the issues plaguing American Christianity today. From confronting the nation's founding racism to discussing the transformative power of writing, our conversation with Dr. Gushee unveils hard truths and offers glimmers of hope. So join us in this enlightening exchange that serves as a reminder of our shared commitment to promoting peace, justice, and equality. Cheers to thought-provoking dialogue and the power of engaging in meaningful conversations!
Wines:
2019 McManis Pinot Grigio
2019 Longhand Cabernet Sauvignon
www.davidpgushee.com
facebook.com/dpgushee
See audio and video episodes at: https://communionwineco.com/podcast/
Find out more at: https://linktr.ee/communionwineco
Pour a glass of wine and pull up a chair. Our latest conversation with esteemed guest, Dr. David P. Gushee, carries us through a fascinating journey into the intersections of faith, ethics, and politics. A seasoned scholar, Dr. Gushee unpacks the implications of Christian authority within the political landscape while interrogating how power dynamics play out in both religious and political spheres. As a distinguished professor of Christian ethics and author of 28 books, he invokes us to think deeper about our own political engagement.
Our discussion takes a powerful turn as we grapple with recent events in Israel, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the potential future of the two-state solution. While we swirl our wines, we reflect on the church's position in supporting the LGBTQ+ community and our collective responsibility in standing against targeting and demagoguery. We dive into the critical issues at play, challenging our listeners to engage in meaningful conversations about power, authority, and the role of the church in these tumultuous times.
As we raise our glasses to a final toast, we dwell on the trials and triumphs of defending democracy and the issues plaguing American Christianity today. From confronting the nation's founding racism to discussing the transformative power of writing, our conversation with Dr. Gushee unveils hard truths and offers glimmers of hope. So join us in this enlightening exchange that serves as a reminder of our shared commitment to promoting peace, justice, and equality. Cheers to thought-provoking dialogue and the power of engaging in meaningful conversations!
Wines:
2019 McManis Pinot Grigio
2019 Longhand Cabernet Sauvignon
www.davidpgushee.com
facebook.com/dpgushee
See audio and video episodes at: https://communionwineco.com/podcast/
Find out more at: https://linktr.ee/communionwineco
Well, welcome back, friends, to another episode of Cabernet and Pray, the podcast, where we get to drink wine and talk about God and see where it goes and all those fun things. So we're excited to have another episode. Excited that you are joining us, whether you're listening in while you do something else or you're watching on video so glad that you guys are part of this. I'm super pumped for today's conversation and we have our most distinguished guest yet and you're going to be able to figure this out by the credentials that I'm going to read. There's a long list and I had to abbreviate it just for the sake of time, but you're going to realize we're talking to someone who does a whole lot and knows a whole lot and I can't wait to see where this conversation goes.
Speaker 1:Today we are talking with the Reverend Professor, dr David P Gushy. He is a distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University. He's the chair of Christian social ethics at Free University of Amsterdam. He's a senior research fellow of the International Baptist Theological Study Center. Say that 10 times fast. He is the elected past president of both the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Christian Ethics. Dr Gushy is the author or co-author or editor of 28 books, including the bestsellers Kingdom Ethics and Changing Our Mind. His other notable works include Still Christian After Evangelicalism, Righteous Gentiles of the Holocaust and the latest Defending Democracy from its Christian enemies. Dr Gushy and his wife Jeannie live in Atlanta, georgia. Welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 2:Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you for the invitation.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think I'm going to need some wine just after trying to introduce you. Anything else we need to know about you to set the tone for today.
Speaker 2:I'm a pastor, I'm a dad and a grandfather and a serious Atlanta Braves fan.
Speaker 1:Okay, so you're coming off a little bit of pain there, that's right. So you're in Arizona, right?
Speaker 2:Yeah, so we also have our share of pain. Yeah, but you made it to the World Series, which was quite an achievement. So, yeah, I could talk baseball all day, oh right. But instead we're going to talk theology and drink wine, which is good too.
Speaker 1:I like it. Okay, on that note, it is time to introduce what we're drinking. Today I am going with a Cabernet Sauvignon. This is called Longhand and it's a super cool label. For those of you who are seeing on video, it's like a little pen tip and this is from California. This thing is super elegant. Doesn't need a steak to go with it. That's how I always gauge a Cabernet Sauvignon Like do you have to have a piece of meat to enjoy it? This one, I don't think you have to, although it would be great. I'm getting deep notes of pomegranate, cranberry, cherry Just a really delightful afternoon glass. So that is what I'm drinking, dr Gussie. How about you?
Speaker 2:Well, I am definitely not as much of a. What is it, somelier? Is that, how you say it? A wine specialty?
Speaker 1:Somelier yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so I am drinking this little wine here called a McMannus. It's a Pinot Grigio from California 2019. Pinot Grigio is our wine, my wife and I. That's our preferred wine and I am not any kind of connoisseur. But a Pinot Grigio anytime, anywhere. Well, you don't want it in the morning. If you're drinking Pinot Grigio in the morning, you probably have some issues, but that's my preference. So that's what I'm drinking today and I say cheers to everyone.
Speaker 1:Cheers, you know, fun fact, when I was getting my wine credentialing, they actually encourage you to drink in the morning because your palate is sharper in the morning. So I would be taking these courses and they would have morning tastings. And it was very weird to be like it's 9 am and I'm, you know, tasting through a flight. But just a fun fact if you get into the wine industry. I did not do that, well okay. So this is super fun for me and I'm going to explain why.
Speaker 1:I took a Christian ethics course for my master's program and your book, kingdom Ethics, was one of our assigned textbooks. So I have known of you and known you by name at least for a while now, and just in preparation for this interview I went back and it was reading some of my highlights from Kingdom Ethics and it's a really good book. Like I had forgotten how much I had highlighted in it and I'm actually preaching this weekend a passage from the Sermon on the Mount and I'm going to use a bunch of your stuff there, because you translated one of the phrases that I think is so good. I'm like I'm. I've forgotten that you had done that. So I have the school connection with you and that's fun because I recently read that in your schooling you had James Cohn as a professor. Now, for those who don't know James Cohn, the book that I know him most for is the Cross and the Lynching Tree, an incredible American theologian. What was it like having James Cohn as a professor?
Speaker 2:Well, first let me ask you, where did you have my book? Like? Where were you in school? Fuller Theological Seminar, yeah, yeah. So, yes, my, in fact it's interesting.
Speaker 2:This is two podcasts in a row where I've been asked about James Cohn. He's a legend, you know. I mean he died a few years ago but my very first class, my very first day at Union Seminar in New York, was with James Cohn and it was in the fall of 1987. And he was already a huge legend and the class was on Third World Liberation Theology. And I mean he just came in and I mean, see, I was a Southern Baptist kid who was a fish out of water.
Speaker 2:But I mean I went to Union because I wanted to expand and he definitely helped to expand my horizons. But I remember he was talking about the God is about the liberation of the oppressed. That that is the gospel, and anybody who would be a gospel person must also be about the liberation of the oppressed. And he was so forceful and clear and uncompromising. And that was my first day of PhD work at Union Seminar. He was a little bit intimidating to me in the beginning but in the end we became friends and I was given an alumni award at Union and I think it was 2013. And he came and told me how proud he was that I was a Union graduate and that meant more to me than any kind of honor or whatever that I could receive. The James Cohn Thought that I had made a good contribution, that I had made Union proud. So that's my James Cohn story. I can imagine that would be pretty significant. I mean, did he grade your papers or did he have like a TA?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think he did. I think he graded the papers. I mean, I just I was thinking like how intimidating to have James Cohn.
Speaker 2:I don't know how you would submit a paper to James Cohn.
Speaker 1:I just feel like that would be a little bit of a challenge. Well, I'll tell you the story, just to say that it was not really a great start.
Speaker 2:His initial lecture was so uncompromising and I found it to be kind of aggressive. God is on the side of the oppressed and God will see the oppressed freed by essentially by any means necessary, and I any kind of I don't know how to say it, but I think it's a great start. I I any questions. You know I was the first person to raise my hand and and I said Dr Cohn, thank you for your lecture. I learned a lot. Are you advocating violence as part of God's liberating agenda? And he said. And he said, in a structure, in a world filled with systemic violence against oppressed people isn't interesting. That's always what is asked when somebody talks about liberation. You should be asking about the violence that dominates our lives every day. A few more things like that. And then he said it'll be important for our, our, our white brothers in this class to listen and not talk too much.
Speaker 1:Wow.
Speaker 2:He said that. He said that that was my first day, my first class at Union. And he said no further questions, sir, no further questions, sir, and I and I did that and I listened. You know, white guys are used to being centered in most brooms and most conversations, and so that was really a shock, but it was the beginning of the many, many things that I learned at Union that I think have have helped me to go on the journey that I've gone on. You know, very cool.
Speaker 1:Now I want to start by asking a question that I like to ask. Each guest of this show Just kind of gives us an insight into a more personal part of your journey. Obviously, people can read a lot that you have produced for, you know, for public consumption. But just a little bit insight into you how has your faith changed over the last 10 years?
Speaker 2:Well, if you, if you give me a 10 year window, that's 2013. And in the year 2013, I was still identifying as an evangelical Christian. I always said I was a progressive or center left evangelical. I always would say not a Jerry Falwell evangelical, Ron Cider, shane Claiborne evangelical. And then I wrote changing our mind, which you mentioned, which called for LGBTQ inclusion. And then mainstream evangelicalism said you're, you're out, you're done. And that wounded. That wounded me. I was used to being a part of that community.
Speaker 2:Even though I was on the left wing of the community, I was in the community and so in the last 10 years, I've gone on a journey out of evangelicalism and and to the margins.
Speaker 2:I spend a lot of time around people who have been wounded by evangelical Christianity queer people, but also, you know, women and dissenters of various types, right?
Speaker 2:So I have become a post-evangelical, I've become a pretty fierce critic of evangelicalism and I have found Jesus on the margins, not just like in theory, but like with real people a lot in the last decade. So, yeah, I would say and that takes me back to James Cohen saying God is found with the oppressed, god is found on the margins. You know, I mean I'm talking about, like kids kicked out of their homes by their parents because they say they might be gay or something right. Or women told oh, we appreciate your gifts, but you can't teach in a room where men are present, or no, if they're under the age of 13, maybe you know all that crap. You know, and African-Americans who discovered that really, evangelicalism is very much a white thing, you know. So I've ended up more on the margins and found a lot of life there. I'm kind of helping to pastor and guide post-evangelicals in some ways, and so, yeah, a lot has changed in the last 10 years.
Speaker 1:Now I had a chance to read your latest book, the Defending Democracy from Its Christian Enemies, and I want to unpack this with you because there's so much there and it was so fun to read it, knowing we were gonna have this conversation, because it's a very thought-provoking book, and so I'm gonna read a number of quotes and I'll turn these into questions and have you kind of expand on them. Right out of the gate you put me on my heels a little bit. You said this. I also firmly believe that Christian rejection of or indifference to democracy in past centuries and today has been one of our greatest and most damaging mistakes. Now I would definitely put myself more in the indifference camp. When it comes to engagement and politics. I've been really fascinated by a lot of the Anabaptist theology and that's kind of a way I've emerged out of evangelicalism for myself. But I read that and I thought, okay, should I be more engaged than I am and do I need to take this seriously? Why do you see this as such a big mistake for Christians to make?
Speaker 2:Because the political system in which people live their lives matters a lot to their well-being. Especially again, those with the least economic power and cultural place and privilege are even more dependent upon a political system that protects their rights and gives them a voice. So I've studied my dissertation was on the Holocaust and so I studied Nazi Germany. I've studied the history of government and politics and I would say it this way when government has too much power or is led by evil men or women and is not checked by a judicial system that is working properly, government can become the most deadly force on the planet. Governments can kill, and often do. In fact, vast killing is always done by governments. Governments can enslave populations, as in the American South, or permit the enslavement, legislate the enslavement of populations. Governments can throw people in jail without reason and without the ability to have a fair trial.
Speaker 2:Democracy is the system of government, the best system of government developed on the planet to protect the rights of individuals and dissenting minority groups and to give people a voice in their own government. So the Anabaptist indifference to government Well, the Anabaptist tradition has not always been about indifference to government involvement. In fact, I read a book by John Howard Yoder while I was working on this project. Now Yoder himself has been disgraced because of some of his what happened with his sexual misconduct. But he did make an argument, an Anabaptist case, for democracy in one of his books. So the kind of Stanley Howell was don't worry about democracy, we're just about being a faithful church. That's not the only way to be an Anabaptist, right. So if we care about the well-being of our neighbors and our communities, we have to care about the government system that is operating and we want it to be operating as healthily as possible, as justly as possible. Short answer we should care about the government system if we care about the well-being of our neighbors.
Speaker 1:A part of the challenge there and you explain this. You say one perennial and very challenging aspect of Christian ethics is political ethics how Christians should engage government, the state and politics. You say in my experience, this is an area in which Christians are generally instructed very poorly by their pastors, if they are instructed at all. Now, this overlap that I just recently finished Scott McKnight's book Revelation for the Rest of Us and in his conclusion he said this line. He said we need political discipleship, which I thought was an interesting argument and it reminded me of what you're saying here. Why do you think this is a challenge for pastors?
Speaker 2:Well, pastors have so many assignments, so many things that pastors have to do Visit the sick in the hospital and run business meetings and keep the budget, you know, solvent. And you know preach weekly sermons and organize an education program. And you know the education, even at a really good seminary and I think Fuller is a really good seminary. I mean, how much training would you say that you received in your education that would prepare you to speak about political life? It might be something that would be in one ethics class maybe, right, yeah, so we're not generally well-trained right in this area. In fact, overall I would like to see improvements in seminary education generally. We could talk about that sometime over a glass of wine, because I do seminary education. But and and politics in our country is dominated by the left, right, democratic, democratic, republican binary, and so if you address any issue from the pulpit that anybody interprets as political, they're going to interpret it from their partisan perspective. If they're Republican, they might think you're a Democrat and dismiss you, or vice versa, right, and so it's like you know, the deck is stacked against you before you even start. And so I see two main things that people do, especially in the evangelical world. One is more and more implicit or explicit advocacy for a specific political party's agenda, or even for specific politicians Rah rah Trump, or rah rah, whoever right from the pulpit. Here's what. Here's what we know what to do. We just do whatever our party says, or quite the other side.
Speaker 2:Let's never, ever, talk about anything that could ever be construed as political, so that we don't get in trouble and so. But but think of everything that rules out. Like you can't talk about race, you can't talk about immigration, you can't talk about sexuality, you can't talk about, I mean, because government see, the thing is, the realm of government and the realm of ethics overlaps a lot. And so if you're not going to be able to talk about anything that could possibly be construed as political, you're not going to be able to talk about a lot of stuff that is in the Bible or that Jesus addressed, or whatever. Money, family power, whatever sex, so so either it's a pure partisan agenda or it's a. We're going to flee and try to be apolitical. We don't talk about stuff, and that cuts a lot of the Bible out of what we connect. I mean, you can't either address these passages in the Bible or you have to dance around what they actually might imply or mean.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we end up with a very shallow sense of ethics then.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's right. My chair in Amsterdam is called a chair in Christian social ethics. So social ethics is anything having to do with public or community life, and that covers a lot of the same ground as government policy politics, right. What should the tax structure be? How should we treat immigrants? What should the laws be about marriage and family? How do we care for God's creation, environmental stuff? Right, we have to address the same things that the government policymakers have to address. But that doesn't mean what we're doing is quote unquote political. It's discipleship in the public arena. You know, in the world in which we all live in, If you can't talk about those things, all you can talk about is personal, private ethics and spirituality, which is important, but it's not all there is to talk about.
Speaker 1:Do you have a great response when someone says just preach Jesus, because that's as you're talking like. I can hear people saying that to me.
Speaker 2:Okay, well, I actually. My next book, jeremy, is on the moral teachings of Jesus. It's coming out next night, 40 exegetical treatments of teachings of Jesus. So, okay, which aspects of Jesus like? Love your enemy, as you did it to the least of these, you did it to me. Seek first the kingdom of God. How does that relate to the kingdoms of this world? Preaching Jesus and yes, I say preach Jesus, be immersed in the gospels. I'm glad you're teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. I'm in the Sermon on the Mount a lot, but Jesus talked about the world in which he lived, and so Jesus is not a refuge from engaging public issues.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's great. Yeah, you say in the book the primary term we will use to contrast with democracy is authoritarianism. Our concern is the deconsolidation of democracy into authoritarianism. So that's how I kind of started understanding the argument you're making. But then you go further and you coin your own phrase. You call it authoritarian, reactionary Christianity. It says there will be the main term I will use to attempt name version of Christian politics that leads to support for, or indifference to, democratic backsliding. Now, based on that which, that was a very intriguing way to kind of put the cards out on the table. But it sounds as if there's only two options you have democracy or you have authoritarianism. Are there more options than that, or do you really see that those are the ends of the spectrum?
Speaker 2:In the book. Essentially, I define democracy as a government that is set up by and for and run on behalf of the people of the country. Right, so democracy is rule of the people, as opposed to rule by a dictator or rule by a monarch or a ruling dynasty of some type. Right and democracy? A modern democracy at least understands that it's ruled by the people, constrained by the rule of law that the people themselves have set up. So you can't just do anything. The legislators can't just pass random laws. The laws have to be in keeping with the constitution and the previous laws that have been made and how the judiciary has interpreted it, and all of that. Right so democracy rule of the people under the rule of law. Boom, that's easy. You know it's interesting.
Speaker 2:Working on the book, I realized a lot of people don't really have much of an understanding of what a democracy actually is and we've kind of taken it for granted. All right. So now take, say, vladimir Putin in Russia. Let's do the contrast. In Russia, is there rule of the people? No, there's rule of one man and his name is Vladimir, all right. Is there the rule of law in Russia? No, the law is whatever Vladimir Putin says it is. I don't think too many people would dispute that. You do have like courts, but they're a sham because they will do whatever Putin says they should do. And you do have legislature, but it's a sham because it will do whatever Putin says it will do.
Speaker 2:So maybe a little bit of movement, a little bit of occasional space for protest, but it's very, very limited, right. I mean, another option is anarchy. Nobody's in charge and you have riots in the streets and stuff. I mean that's an option, and there have been Christian anarchists, that's what you know. But anarchy nobody thinks anarchy is a good way to govern a country, right? So that's the other extreme, but historically, the democratic. The choice for democracy was a choice against some kind of centralized power in a ruling family or in a dictator or some kind of dynasty or oligarchy, and so it's the diffusion of power instead of the centralization of power. So, yes, I would stand by the idea that in democracy is the rule of the people and in authoritarianism it's the rule of a, of a small clique or one person who is not really accountable to the people. And given that choice, I go with democracy every time.
Speaker 1:So, would you see, basically, the more the authority has been decentralized, usually the healthier it is.
Speaker 2:Yes, because people are sinful. Reinhold Niebuhr said this. I have this quote in the Bible or in the book the human capacity for justice makes democracy possible. The human capacity for injustice makes democracy necessary. Yeah, that's a great quote. It's a grand old Niebuhr quote. Right, and so we have to have enough ability to make decisions and move forward. You have to have the ability to decide things that need to be decided, but you also have to have checks and balances so that all of this power is not in the hands of one person, and that's what democracy attempts to do. It's brilliant solution to the human nature problem, I think in government. But democracy is vulnerable, and the founders of the American system understood this. Democracy is always vulnerable to the person who would like to try to centralize power and to grasp all control for himself or herself.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the profound edge of this book is that you're arguing Christians are the ones we need to be worried about, and you're obviously writing this as a Christian. I think that might be a surprising angle for some believers, but you explain this really well. You say it's not fundamentalist Muslims who today are serious candidates for federal and statewide offices in the United States. It is Christians who are positioning themselves to remake our 240-year-old democratic and church-state arrangements. And then you had this line that caught my attention Authoritarianism in Christianity is a feature, not a bug, and it is unlikely to change in most Christian quarters anytime soon. Why is authoritarianism a feature of Christianity?
Speaker 2:Well, think about fundamentalists and evangelical and traditional Catholic, throw-in Eastern Orthodox if you want. Think about these religious communities. Right? Who decides? Who declares what God's will is? Is it the people? It's not. It's the pastor, it's the bishop, it's the pope, it's the patriarch, it's the magisterium, like the cardinals or in first-century Judaism or early or proto-Judaism that Jesus was dealing with. It was like the Pharisees or the Sanhedrin or whatever. There's. Always there tends to be a centralized religious authority structure and so if you're in a typical kind of authoritarian evangelical church, it's the pastor who declares what is God's will, what is right, how the Bible is to be interpreted.
Speaker 2:I think probably most people who'd be listening to this would say, yeah, that wasn't what my church was like or is like right. In a democracy, power is diffused when the decision as to what we're gonna do, what we're gonna consider to be right, is made through a community-wide deliberative process and then there's a vote. And I argue in the book that it was not easy for a lot of Christians to accept democracy because of the decentralization of power and so much going into the hands of the people. We were used to having somebody tell us what was right and good and wrong and bad and what the rules were gonna be, and many, many Christians even today prefer that structure everywhere it's possible. So think about the patriarchal family where dad's word is the law, right. Or the Christian school where the principal says this is how it's gonna be, period. Or the traditionalist Catholic who just wishes it could be like the tradition of the church, the way it used to be, and we're just gonna enforce that and there's not gonna be any negotiation about that. So I argue in the book that it took a lot of thinking and a lot of hard lessons learned for Christians to say well, even if that's how our religious communities are gonna be, in the public arena, we're gonna want everybody to have a voice. We actually think the country will be run better by lots of people having a voice instead of one person deciding.
Speaker 2:And I argue that there's a kind of a resurgent authoritarianism on the part of many Christians today. There in America and some other countries too, they're questioning whether democracy is the best way to run a country. They see all the inefficiencies of democracy and the decisions that they don't like and the policies that they don't accept and the leaders that they strongly reject and they're kind of yearning for the good old days of authoritarian rule, and so and I think, of course, the Trump phenomenon is part of that, but I also know that in many circles, christians are actually being taught something other than liberal democracy is what, how government should be. They're being taught something like old Christendom paradigms. So there are people who are arguing that what we need is to take separation of church and state out of our system, take the First Amendment away, establish a Christian structure to the government and elect politicians who will enforce Christian morality as the law. That's authoritarianism and that's something I'm arguing strongly against in the book.
Speaker 1:So do you see that there is a healthy version of Christian authority, spiritual authority in a church context, or would you be leery of any version of that?
Speaker 2:It's a great question. I know that there is a role for the proper exercise of authority in, say, schools and churches and families and public life, but it's never absolutist authority or shouldn't be. In the Baptist paradigm that I come from, the people elect the pastor. The pastor leads with a delegated authority and the pastor is answerable to the people such that he or she can be removed for misconduct or for whatever reason. That's actually true. We elect a president, but a president can be removed either through impeachment or through being voted out at the next election. So I believe that the community holds the authority. The community needs leaders. So leaders are appointed, but they are answerable to the community and can be removed by the community. As soon as that answerableness is lost, you've moved away from, you might say, community or communal governance, back to authoritarianism.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm gonna throw a curveball at you. You're reminding me of something I said in episode six. I talked about the culture of the pirates, and I don't know if you've done much reading on this. I've always been fascinated by pirate culture, but what you're describing with authority was the way the pirates ran. There was a ship captain, but they led at the mercy of their crew, and so they would often take votes or they would say, hey, if our whole crew doesn't wanna do this, we're not doing this. And if a captain decided to lead on their own whim, they would get overthrown and the pirates would take over and they would boot that captain out, which was in stark contrast to the way the British and Spanish navies ran, where you had a captain who was very authoritarian, could whip, you, could do anything to you. The pirates thrived because they had this model that was there, was this shared version, and, as I'm listening to you talk of like, we need the church to be more like pirates, like that's the thing.
Speaker 2:There you go. So I had never heard that, but yeah, it's interesting. In the military there is a strong culture of authority. You do what the commanding officer says, right, but there it's the rule of law, including, you know the, you know various manuals as to, like the army manual, as to how things are supposed to be done or whatever. So it's not absolutist. Still, it is a pretty authoritarian culture, but there are still rules and if somebody abuses their authority or commands the violations of the rule of law, for example, they are supposed to be resisted. But yes, that's one of the places where you have a strong culture of authoritarian leadership. But in the military, in a democracy under the rule of law, there are still definite boundaries and a culture that says no, no, you can't do that, even though you have that authority. There are boundaries to your authority. Yeah, yeah, that's interesting.
Speaker 2:So what I think is that there are a lot of people who are losing. A lot of Christians are losing confidence in American democracy because, well, besides the obvious things like it's inefficient and partisanship is wrecking everything and all of that. But my thesis of the book, as you know, is that conservative Christians especially are freaked out by a lot of cultural and moral and policy changes that they simply do not accept, and the democracy and American culture is delivering defeat after defeat to their perspective, Like Tuesday night in Ohio, abortion gets enshrined in the Constitution Boom. And in Kentucky a pro-life Republican loses again to a Democratic governor. And it's like how is it that people keep making all of these wrong decisions from their perspective? Is there anything we can do to get our country back the way we think it should be? And I argue that more and more Christians are emboldened to think that maybe the democracy itself is the problem.
Speaker 1:Okay, I have a personal thesis or, I guess, an argument I've been working on. It's not my notes, but you're again. You're just firing up my brain all these things there we go.
Speaker 1:I got a theory. I'll test my theory out on you. You can shoot it down and say if it's a load of bullocks. I think that you know one of the phrases I often hear whenever we talk about this is like, well, I'm against big government or I'm for big government, or you know. It often talks like what's the scale of the scope of the government? How much do I do?
Speaker 1:My working theory is this I think everybody wants a big government. We just want a big government to enforce the things that matter to us, right? You could argue on both sides, you know, and say do you want, you know, big? If you're a Republican, you want big government to crack down on abortion. You want the government to be very involved, right? If you're a progressive, you want big government to be involved when it comes to how we incorporate, you know, immigrants and how we're letting them in, and you know. So we want government to be involved on the things that matter to us and we want small government on the things we go. No, no, no, don't touch that. But my thought is that's like a red herring. It's not even real. What do you think? Is there any merit?
Speaker 2:to that. No, I think there is a lot of merit to that. A libertarian ideology is a, in principle, in principle, a small government ideology. From the beginning of democratic political theory, there was a strong libertarian strand that basically said government should do as little as possible. The main thing government needs to do is to secure people from physical harm. And so what you, some people would say, the only thing that we should pay government to do is police, policing and military. That's it. But immediately you know that that's not going to work.
Speaker 2:Okay, so who's going to build the roads and repair them? Right, and you know what about environmental protection? And so, gradually, government gets bigger and bigger, because government's task is not just security. In the end, government's task is as big as the people decide it should be Educating children, providing green space in communities, protecting the environment, you know. And so, yes, take abortion. These states that have attempted to outlaw abortion or strictly tightly restrict it find themselves doing things like looking at regulating the males to see whether abortion pills are coming in the mail, right? I mean checking people's like mail boxes, right? Is that what we're doing?
Speaker 1:Well, it needs to be the people saying we should not have big government.
Speaker 2:Right, except for checking people's mail, and which I would argue is very big government. That's very big government, right? Or seeing if they're crossing state lines to go somewhere else for an abortion, or you know, that's whoa. That's not what we do here. Right On the liberal side, yeah, big government, like social service provision and integrating immigrants into society so that they can be successful, or a lot of efforts in environmental protection, are regulating the corporate sector, or whatever. Yeah. So the size of government and what government is charged to do is that's. Those are democratic decisions and it does not appear there's much of a constituency for small government. Really, it's just, which projects are we asking government to do, right? So you're right, jeremy.
Speaker 1:All right, I got the gushy approval on my theory. Okay, so let's say someone's listening to this conversation and maybe having a similar reaction. I had read the book going okay, I got to. I got to maybe take a little look at this. I got a process how to do better in this arena. How does a Christian actively engage in politics without losing their identity as a Christian Right? So how do they say I'm going to get better at this, more engaged, but I'm not going to get sucked into the partisan chaos that we see.
Speaker 2:That's a great question. I think a way to think about it is the common good, the well being of the community and of the nation and of the world, becomes the goal. So I want to be involved in the political process for the good of my neighbors, especially those who are in greatest need of help. Okay, so? So then it's not about I just want my team to win, it's about I want certain goals to be advanced, and thinking about those goals becomes a really creative process, and that should be able to be done in Christian community.
Speaker 2:So poverty is a bad thing. How do we address it? How do we lift as many as people as possible out of poverty? What are the causes of poverty? What government policies and corporate policies and so on are most helpful? Right, everybody having clean water to drink and clean air to breathe is a good thing. So what are the policy steps that help make that happen? Every child needs a decent education. So how do we ensure a good education for all children, not just my children, all children? So you start thinking about the good of our neighbors and do unto others as you would have them do unto you, right, the flourishing of every person. And so then you get involved for those goals.
Speaker 2:Now what my book is saying is democracy is the kind of system where our voices actually accounts. You can talk to the, your congressperson, and say, hey, vote this way, vote that way. Or I noticed that you said this. That violates my values. And let me tell you why. You have a voice. So, getting to know your, your local and state and federal representatives, being a presence, calling them, writing them, writing letters to the editor in the newspaper, joining advocacy groups on specific issues, all of those things can be done without violating our primary Christian commitment. In fact, I think they can express our Christian commitment of love of our neighbors. That's beautiful.
Speaker 2:Thank you.
Speaker 1:Okay, while I read the book I had a question that I was like very excited. I get to ask you this because this would be one of those. I'd read the book and I would just wonder like how does this go together? There's an idea that I read years ago from a mentor of mine named Greg Boyd. That has been just a foundational, really helpful way of me understanding a lot of my role as a Christian. I'm very curious. I have no idea we're going to go with this answer. I'm very curious how you would use this.
Speaker 1:This comes from a book called Myth of a Christian Nation and Boyd writes this. He says while all the versions of the kingdom of the world acquire and exercise power over others, the kingdom of God, incarnated and modeled in the person of Jesus Christ, advances only by exercising power under others. Boyd offers this power over versus power under. That I know I and many others have found very helpful. Does this fit into what you're saying here? How would you incorporate it or offer a different way of looking at it? What would you do with that?
Speaker 2:I would say that, and I actually had somebody write me a letter last week saying I don't think I can be involved in politics because it involves power over. In other words, they had this kind of framework in mind. I think it's too simple a distinction. Okay, so, for example, when the government takes our tax money, that's power over, because, jeremy, if you don't pay your taxes, the government has power over you and they can find you and penalize you. But is that power over like intrinsically wrong, or does the kingdom being power under mean that a good Christian could not be part of the tax collecting apparatus of the state? Well then, the question is is it illegitimate for taxes to be collected to do things like educate children and clean up the environment and provide police and military? Well, the latter is about violence, so that, or connects to violence, so that's complicated in a different way. But let's just say fix the roads, educate the children and clean up the environment. Let's just say that the state exercises power over us collecting our money, whether we like it or not, to do those three things. I do not think it is illegitimate for the state to do those things, to collect the money from us, especially if we have had a voice in setting the tax rate, because it is our representatives who set the rate. Nor do I think it is illegitimate for Christians to be the ones who are actually collecting the taxes, so to work at the IRS and write the letter to Jeremy saying, jeremy, you owe us another $3,000. I don't think that's illegitimate either because in the democratic process that is what the tax rate was decided to be and this was the agency that was set up to enforce it. So what I think Boyd is doing there is too negative about the proper exercise of power.
Speaker 2:In public life, parents have how about private life? Parents have power over children. We say, no, you can't do that. Or yes, you must do that. You can't have seven cookies before dinner and you must go to school. That's power over. Is that illegitimate? No, because you're exercising power for the good of the child.
Speaker 2:If you were not exercising that power, then the child would make all kinds of bad decisions. So I actually think that the distinction is overdrawn and it makes us allergic to the proper exercise of power in community. So, no, I think I'm not there. But power over, for what purpose? If the state says, hey, 330 million Americans, you must all affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord. That would be an illicit exercise of government power because it would oppress the rights of the citizens. It's not what government is supposed to be doing and it's a violation of the First Amendment. So it's how the power is exercised, not whether the power is exercised, and it's also who decides what the rules are going to be in a democracy, because we have a voice. In that there's a legitimacy. That would not be the case if a dictator said this is what you must do. It's a good hot take.
Speaker 1:I literally was like I need to clip this and then get buoyed on.
Speaker 2:You heard it here, but you know a lot of. You know, sometimes I think that's a misreading of the Anabaptist reading of like the state and there's a sometimes there's a kind of a purism, like I mean this is why I'm more of a Nebrian than I am an Anabaptist, in that, this purism, I can't let my hands touch worldly power. I think it's too much of a withdrawal from the real world. It's about the kind of things I've named. What is that power being used for? How about this? The Supreme Court in 1954 used its power over to mandate the integration of schools on racially, you will integrate your schools, period. And a lot of people said no, no, states rights, states rights, local control no, no, that's awful, you're violating our way of life. I think that was legitimate exercise of state power, because racial segregation and the shunting off of black kids to awful second class schools was wrong and like the way that we all know. We all know that our for the good of the community.
Speaker 1:Using proper, legitimated processes is just how government works. I just think there's a lot of us you know and you read Christian history who walk away very cautious of Christians using power, because it usually goes bad against and hurt other people.
Speaker 2:I wrote about this this week in an article. I learned that in Europe, at least at one stage, the Christian rulers decreed that no synagogue could ever be built taller than a church. Why did they decree that? Because they wanted Jews to know that they were second class, that this was a Christian country. That's power over exercised illegitimately. I think so. It's about what that power is being used for, and we decided in America that we were not gonna allow government power to be used to lift up one religion at the expense of another religion, and that was a really good decision which we need to protect.
Speaker 1:You heard it here, folks the hot take. All right, on that note, we need a drink break, I think so. ["the Star-Spangled Banner"]. All right now, one of the things I love to ask, and I always get very random answers to this. I'm hoping I get a Pinot Grigio story. Do you have a moment, with your experience with wine, that you go? I had that one glass or that one bottle and all the stars aligned. That thing just was so good and I still think about it today. Have you ever had a glass of wine like that?
Speaker 2:Well, now you get my romantic side. Ooh, okay, let's get it I. I was raised while I wasn't raised, but I'd converted to Southern Baptist who did not believe in drinking. So alcohol had no Accepted part in my life, until I finally slough that off gradually and but for me wine is associated with my wife.
Speaker 1:Hmm.
Speaker 2:Jeanne. I've been married 39 years now, Jeremy congratulations. Thank you, and 99% of the time that I am touching alcohol, it is on a date with my wife.
Speaker 1:This makes me feel so special to have this moment with you right now, so I've never shared this with anybody.
Speaker 2:So I mean, there's so many things happening in this, in this conversation right now. People are gonna be Thousand years from now, people are gonna be looking at this podcast saying so, this was the breakthrough.
Speaker 2:That was the moment it all went south. So so, yeah, like a glass of wine is associated for me with a being in close mazuri restaurant in London with Jeanne. That's our favorite restaurant in the world, close mazuri. It's on the West End near the theater district. We were there about two weeks ago before a show, having a glass of Pinot Grigio. Or being in New Zealand with Jeanne on a trip and just saying, wow, well here we are, cheers, what experience is ahead of us now. So so your question evokes my romantic side in a big way, and Alcohol is associated with Jeanne. So there you go, to Jeanne.
Speaker 1:Okay, let's get into a couple couple dice your questions and then we'll we'll try to wrap this up. Chapter four of your book addresses the modern state of Israel, and this was printed before the events of the last month or so. What are your thoughts on what's happening in pal center?
Speaker 2:now it's all catastrophic. As I think I mentioned, my dissertation was on the Holocaust, so I have I have a pretty deep understanding of Jewish history and the history of Jewish suffering. Immediately, when I heard about what happened on October 7th, when Hamas came in and just started slaughtering men, women and children In the worst attack on a civilian population of Jews since the Holocaust, that's what my mind went to. It was a shattering experience for Israel and for the Jewish people worldwide and and that must never be forgotten. And now you've got 240 people who you including children and grandmothers and stuff who have been kidnapped. So so the Israel, a sense of security that the, the sense that you could live it at home in your own country, was shattered.
Speaker 2:The Military response since then, over the last month, has been Relentless, intense and has taken Lots and lots of lives, including the lives of children. Now, the fact that Gaza is a densely populated area and that Hamas is all interwoven with the population, inevitably there were going to be a lot of civilian casualties, but but the humanitarian needs of the population there, I think, have not inadequately addressed, and I mean the need for food and water or sanitation, safe transit. The news came out today that Israel has agreed to humanitarian pauses each day For people to escape, and that's that's good, that's progress. But you know, I see Israel in the, in the, the relentlessness of the bombing and and the Maybe lack of adequate provision for civilians as as operating out of, out of experience of trauma and of outrage. That is perhaps certainly a lack of Outrage, that is perhaps certainly understandable, but not a good basis for government policy in the long term.
Speaker 2:So that's what I would say. I also hope that Israel will not now reoccupy Gaza and just hold it. The US is proposing that the Palestinian Authority should have leadership in both Gaza and the West Bank, and I think that's right. In an odd way, this may be an opportunity for a revival of the two-state solution and a final, a final resolution of this awful conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I would like to see, a year from now, two years from now, finally a Palestinian state with self-government and in Israel, with its own self-government and people leaving each other alone, no more terrorism, and May it be so. So that's what I would say.
Speaker 1:One of the things you pointed out in the book that I was very grateful to see you address and I'm curious you know what the reaction will be. I want to read a quote. You say seeing the consistent pattern of demagoguery in relation to LGBTQ People in all of the countries we have studied so far. I pause here to note how wrong it is that targeting this group is so often the means by which conservative Christian populist gain power. It is a strategy of evoking disgust for a group of vulnerable people and then leveraging that disgust to gain political power. I appreciate that you highlight this and as I read that, I said I hope more Christians see that connection. How do you see that the church can better support the LGBTQ plus community?
Speaker 2:I Really liked that sentence. You know what made me write that sentence? There was, there was this Polish Author, legucco, that I quote in the chapter on Poland, who was a parliamentarian and a scholar, philosopher, and I read his book because I was trying to read the other side. He wrote a book called the demon in democracy, which was interesting, and so I read it, and in that book there was some rather vicious attacks on LGBTQ people and he even used the slur that I won't repeat here to describe gay people and I thought, oh my gosh, I cannot believe that somebody in a position of authority would actually Would actually do that.
Speaker 2:But it was consistent with a broader pattern, whether in Russia, poland, hungary, brazil or the US, bashing gay people as a political strategy. Gay or trans. Right, the gay agenda is that it's coming for your kids if we don't push back hard, etc. Etc. Right, when a population is lifted up for attack like that, it's just evil and it is also very threatening to them as individuals. And it could be, it could be immigrants to or Muslims or whoever you name right, those awful Subhuman such and such and such and such. They are a great threat to our country when visible political leaders do that kind of thing, they put a target on the back of the people who that they, who they name, basically says hurt them, hurt them, they're bad, they deserve it and that's so wrong.
Speaker 2:So, by the way, this is something that remember I said earlier about writing. Changing our mind really put me in a in a place of solidarity with LGBTQ people. These are my friends, these are our Christian brothers and sisters, these are our fellow citizens. I will not stand by quietly when my friends and I can tell you names Are targeted Politically by demagogues to hurt them. So I call on anybody listening to this conversation To say no to the demagoguing of populations so that somebody can win an election or gain popularity in their state or whatever right, or or a pastor doing it because they think it'll help them be more popular or have More street cred with their people, or whatever.
Speaker 1:Right, because I this definitely carries into the church or it absolutely does.
Speaker 2:The pastor who feels the need to, you know, fly the bloody flag of those awful gay people you know as a routine feature of preaching. That's just so irresponsible. And then there's that 12 year old kid in the church who thinks they might be gay and they're hearing pastor do that. It's a direct assault on their fragile little psyche. You know whether people ever changed their mind to full out a fully affirming position? That's up to them. I've made the case for that. But this is not about affirming. This is just about not targeting people.
Speaker 2:And it is really interesting that, whether it's Brazil or Hungary or Poland under the last government, or Russia or the US, targeting queer people is a political strategy and that's bad politics. It's toxic, just as targeting people of color or targeting immigrants or targeting any other population would be. So we need to be really aware of the fact that we're not just targeting people of color. So we need to be loving all of our neighbors and protecting them from harm, and so blow the whistle on that. If you have a pastor that plays that game, say don't do that. This is not what preaching is supposed to be, for. You're supposed to be telling us how to love our neighbors, not how to hurt them. By the way, drinking this Pinot Grigio at three o'clock in the afternoon is making me even more direct in my communication than I normally would be. Thank you, jeremy.
Speaker 1:That's. That's how we get the real deal on cavernane prey.
Speaker 2:There you go, baby. Okay, keep going what you got.
Speaker 1:Okay, one of my favorite quotes in the book and there is a lot I really love, but this one. I shared it and I just went Damn. That is a great sentence and I've shared this with numerous friends since since I read it. You say this the United States may offer the most pronounced example of a nation that has never been able to overcome its founding racism and thus has never realized its democratic principles and aspirations. Now, this is an incredible insight, and here's why I think you you worded this in such a brilliant way. Most of the time people make the observation of founding racism, it is heard, as you know, you are not patriotic, you are bashing the country. You. You're very un-American, right? It's usually heard in that way. You're saying the United States could be far greater if it actually dealt with this issue, and just the way you worded that. How do you propose we do this? How do we tackle our country's founding racism?
Speaker 2:Yeah, Well, thank you for the praise of that statement. And it is true that you know there's a lot of dumb polarization like, oh, you're saying America is awful and now I can't listen to you because you hate. You hate our country and you know that, and then you can't even have a conversation. So what I'm saying is much more nuanced than that. 1776 was a breakthrough for democracy in the history of the world. And then 1789, with the Bill of Rights and the ratification of the Constitution, breakthrough. I'm proud to be an American. I should get out my flag right now. Man, I'm, I'm, I'm fired up, okay, but you know, all men are created equal and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They said that In a context where an entire race of people was being enslaved and that was a contradiction, a dagger at the heart of democracy from the beginning. And African Americans knew it in 1776 and they said it when they could, and they knew it in 1830, and they knew it in 1860 and they knew it when slavery was over. But we had Jim Crow and the KKK, and they knew it in 1950, and they knew it in 1954 and Martin Luther King knew it in the I have a Dream speech in 1963. They just said you know your behavior violates your own stated principles, so fix it. And the way Dr King did it in the I have a Dream speech was you made promises to all of us that you have not kept yet. So keep your promises.
Speaker 2:One way to tell the story of what we're dealing with right now is, for decade after decade, some part of the population has been asking for the fulfillment of the promise of equality. Not just black people, but allies and people saying well, we want is a democracy in which people of every ethnicity, every religion, every belief system, everybody counts as equal. Everybody gets to participate on the same terms, sometimes called a multi-racial, pluralistic democracy. So picture a round table. Picture the most diverse people that you know in your community. Put them all around the table and everybody gets one vote. You know Gay, straight, and you know. You know you can't say that you're a gay, straight, male, female, black, white, hispanic, asian. Put them all around the table. Everybody gets one vote, everybody counts. A lot of us are deeply inspired by that vision. That's America, right. And then other people appear to be like nah, well, maybe it's okay to have all those people here.
Speaker 2:This country belongs to white people, especially white men, especially white Christian men, we're the ones who should be in charge. We were the ones who were in charge in the beginning. We should be in charge now and forever, and this is what is known as like white Christian nationalism, basically, or white Christian nationalism. It's our country. You know, it's not only like right wing people who believe that.
Speaker 2:I discovered this quote from Franklin Roosevelt I don't know if I put it in the book. He said, and he was reported to have said in a conversation with a Catholic and Jewish cabinet member members he said this is a white, anglo-saxon Protestant country. Everybody else is here by sufferance. Roosevelt said that in like 1944, as if to say back off, guys, you're in my cabinet, but this country belongs to us like blue-blooded, white Protestant types of European background. So if that was Franklin Roosevelt, like the guy who gave us the new deal, what does that say about the kind of the heritage of ideas of our country?
Speaker 2:Right, so the movement for a country with a big round table in which everybody is included in equal terms is a somewhat radical break with that, with the practice of our history, but it is also more in keeping with the principle of democracy and it's a more fair and more just country.
Speaker 2:And it's I mean, what were we taught? Jesus loves everyone, everyone, everyone has made the image of God. There are no higher and lower strata of humans in God's sight. Did you ever have anybody say to you you know Jesus died for everyone, not just for us and our group. So you know Jesus died for everyone, not just for us and our group. So Christians have every reason to embrace an egalitarian democracy in which everybody counts. Even if some of their values are not the same as our values, they're part of the community on equal terms. So what we have is a backward-looking white, christian, traditionalist community that is like now, we don't want that, we want to be in charge. And that's what this book is attacking, especially when those people say we want to be in charge and if the democracy will not give us that, maybe we'll just do away with the democracy.
Speaker 1:I'll be honest, when I read the book it was kind of depressing in a lot of ways, because you make your point so well and you showed me it's more pronounced than I realized, it's wider spread than I realized. You do a deep dive on a number of other countries that I wasn't as familiar with and you paint a very clear picture and it wasn't like rah, rah, rah, we're doing great. It was a very sobering like whoa. This is a concern. I'm curious personally how do you remain hopeful in light of all the work you've done here? Because I don't get a sense of despair out of you. And yet on paper, the statistics don't look great.
Speaker 2:Well, we are in a struggle, but I actually think that the majority of Americans and a significant chunk of Christians they don't want what the authoritarians are selling and in a number of elections and other kinds of contests since 2021, they've said no to it. And recently there was an election in Poland that was tilted to the authoritarian, reactionary Christian party. They lost anyway.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you share that in the book.
Speaker 2:Yeah, they lost anyway. The people didn't want them. Putin will never be voted out because he's set up the rule such that it's impossible, but in Poland they were still having an election. 73% of the people turned out and they voted that party out. Bolsonaro was voted out in Brazil. Trump was voted out in America.
Speaker 2:I think that the majority of people do not want what that group is selling, and they know it, which is one reason why they're so worried and so unhappy, and I think we've had a number of elections since 2021 that have revealed that. So I think so that's one thing that gives me hope. I don't think that the majority of the people want it. Another thing is that our democratic principles are increasingly understood to be both threatened and cherished. In other words, when something that you value is threatened, you look at it again and say, whoa, no, that's worth protecting. So you have a number of. You have, like various people in the society mobilizing to say, no, we're not going to let this happen. We had a near miss on January 6 and we're not going to let it happen again.
Speaker 2:Laws were changed. By the way, our Congress that can't decide anything actually passed a law to prevent there being any uncertainty, for example, about the vice president just having to count the votes on January 6. That was changed, so that would never happen again. Republicans voted for that. That's cool, right.
Speaker 2:So I think that the forces, the pro democracy forces, are mobilizing. I'm still worried because people will vote on other reasons, like they don't like the economy, or they think the president's too old, or whatever, but there's no, no, nothing more important to vote on than whether we're going to have a democracy itself, and people see that. A lot of people do enough, and the checks and balances of the system have held up pretty well, like the military, you know, having its independence from politics, and the judiciary having a review that is not to be intimidated by politicians, and stuff like that. So we have things built in that are really hard to overcome, which is helpful. So I'm hopeful. I'm really distressed, though, jeremy, that so many Christians will be happy to trade away democracy for their group getting its will, getting its way. It's like really. So this is a fight within the soul of Christians Christians in America as much as anything, and that's a lot of what the book is for is addressing that.
Speaker 1:Well said, okay, rapid fire. A few closing questions, and this could be on topic or something totally different. Maybe you're working on something new on the side that we don't know about yet. What do you see as one of the main issues facing American Christianity today? Is it what we talked about or is it something different?
Speaker 2:This is a big one, especially coming into an election year, but I would say it looks to me like we haven't recovered from COVID. A church attendance hasn't really recovered. So what does church look like in the post COVID era? Maybe another one would be. We're so divided on left, right lines. Is there such a thing as the church anymore? There is there the left wing church and the right wing church. Is that really how bad it is? And I kind of think it is actually what's the problem you're trying to solve?
Speaker 2:How to educate ministers who are up to the challenge of the moment.
Speaker 1:Like that. What's something you're excited about right now?
Speaker 2:My European academic appointment has me engaging, engaging cultural and religious challenges in European countries and not just in the US. That's exciting to me because I'm tired of the US and all of our stuff, stuckness and problems and stuff Going to the UK and Denmark and Amsterdam and Lithuania and Germany and such. I'm getting to be in different kinds of conversations, which is really exciting for me.
Speaker 1:So all the Americans who say I'm moving to Canada, you actually are actually getting out of the US enough.
Speaker 2:There's a lot of healthier countries in ours right now. There really are. It's hard, it's exhausting. Actually, you know 2024 election cycle, especially if Trump is in it is going to be so exhausting.
Speaker 1:But I mean, I'm in it, I'm in it, I'm in it to win it, man Another year I talked to some of my friends who are lead pastors and I just look at them and say I'm so glad I'm not in that chair anymore, because coming into this next election, my goodness.
Speaker 2:It's a hard place to be. I mean 2016,. I know pastors who left, whether it was in 2016. Or 17 or 20 or 21. It was all about this stuff. You know. I'm excited and impressed with pastors who've graded it out, not been driven out of their pulpits, been faithful, kept on going. I'm proud and I want to say hang in there, we need you.
Speaker 1:All right, dr Gussie. This has been a fascinating conversation with the wine infusion. This has been delightful. Your book is out now. Right, it came out early October, I believe, so you can find it everywhere. Defending democracy. I don't know where I put. Oh, I put my cover here. I had it to show to those on video. This is what it looks like. I heartily endorse this. This was a great read. I got the chance to pick your brain on. You know where my mind went as I read it and hopefully those who are listening or watching can dive in and go oh, that's what they were talking about as well. I really do think you are challenging the church. You're inviting the church forward and not just like kicking us in the butt, but actually helping to hold our hand along the way. Here's how we can do a better job. So anything else you want people to check out that they want to resonate with what you're doing.
Speaker 2:Well, thank you that you hear it as holding the hand and not just kicking the butt, because I'm trying. I'm a pastor. I want Christian people to follow Jesus faithfully, and so you know that's always there. The website has been shown so you can check that out. I have a sub stack that can be accessed through that. On social media, I'm at atdpgushy.
Speaker 1:And the website is DavidPGushycom.
Speaker 2:That's right. So you want to send me an email or be in conversation? You know I try to be in touch with people when they are in touch with me, so so yeah, and I hope that that we can make a difference in in in helping the church get into a healthier place. So so, thanks for thanks for taking the time to engage my work, jeremy. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1:Anything? Any last comments that we didn't get to question? I should have asked that.
Speaker 2:I didn't know I think it was pretty thorough, you know I. You know I do talk in the book about kind of historic Christian resources for defending democracy, and I talk about covenant, covenantalism and congregationalism and the black democratic tradition. So so it isn't just doom and gloom. I talk about resources that are there in the toolbox that we need to kind of pull out and think through in some new ways. So so that's maybe just a note. Look for the positive resources that are there. You don't have to be a secularist to support democracy. Christians have supported democracy and I try to show why in the book.
Speaker 1:Well, dr Gussie, I thoroughly have enjoyed this. I appreciate your time as, as your bio indicated, you are a busy man doing lots of things and lots of conversations, so the fact that you took the time to sit down with us means a lot. I'm stoked to have more people get exposed to your work and to this incredible book. So thank you again for all that you're doing, and we really have enjoyed our time together.
Speaker 2:Thank you, Jeremy. Good having a glass of wine with you and having this conversation.
Speaker 1:Awesome. And to all of you who are watching or listening, hopefully this has got you going as well and your mind is firing on all cylinders. Check out the book, check out Dr Gussie's website and his works. You will be glad that you did and hopefully this has been official. As you figure out how do we live out our faith for the flourishing of all people. We'll catch you next time on Cabernet and Pray.